Posted on 12/07/2007 8:10:37 AM PST by ZGuy
The Reuters headline said: "Mitt Romney Vows Mormon Church Will Not Run White House." Unfortunately, this time Reuters got its story right. In his long-awaited speech designed to win over conservative evangelicals, Romney actually did say something to this effect, making many people wonder why he needed to make such a vow in the first place. It's a bit like hearing Giuliani vow that the mafia will not be running his White House—it is always dangerous to say what should go without saying, because it makes people wonder why you felt the need to say it. Is the Mormon church itching to run the White House, and does Romney need to stand firm against them?
It is true that John Kennedy made a similar vow in his famous 1960 speech on religion, and Romney was clearly modeling his speech on Kennedy's. But the two situations are not the same. When John Kennedy vowed that the Vatican would not control his administration, he was trying to assuage the historical fear of the Roman Catholic Church that had been instilled into generations of Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Kennedy shrewdly didn't say that the Vatican wouldn't try to interfere—something that his Protestant target audience would never have believed in a millions years anyway; instead, Kennedy said in effect, "I won't let the Vatican interfere." And many Protestants believed him—in large part, because no one really thought Kennedy took his religion seriously enough to affect his behavior one way or the other.
The Mormon church is not Romney's problem; it is Romney's own personal religiosity. On the one hand, Romney is too religious for those who don't like religion in public life—a fact that alienates him from those who could care less about a candidate's religion, so long as the candidate doesn't much care about it himself. On the other hand, Romney offends precisely those Christian evangelicals who agree with him most on the importance of religion in our civic life, many of whom would be his natural supporters if only he was a "real" Christian like them, and not a Mormon instead.
To say that someone is not a real Christian sounds rather insulting, like saying that he is not a good person. But when conservative Christians make this point about Romney, they are talking theology, not morality. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Mormon creed will understand at once why Romney felt little desire to debate its theological niceties with his target audience of Christian evangelicals, many of whom are inclined to see Mormonism not as a bona fide religion, but as a cult. In my state of Georgia, for example, there are Southern Baptist congregations that raise thousands of dollars to send missionaries to convert the Mormons to Christianity.
Yet if Romney was playing it safe by avoiding theology, he was treading on dangerous ground when he appealed to the American tradition of religious tolerance to make his case. Instead of trying to persuade the evangelicals that he was basically on their side, he did the worst thing he could do: he put them on the defensive. In his speech Romney came perilously close to suggesting: If you don't support me, you are violating the cherished principle of religious tolerance. But such a claim is simply untenable and, worse, highly offensive.
The Christian evangelicals who are troubled by Romney's candidacy do not pose a threat to the American principle of religious tolerance. On the contrary, they are prepared to tolerate Mormons in their society, just as they are prepared to tolerate atheists and Jews, Muslims and Hindus. No evangelical has said, "Romney should not be permitted to run for the Presidency because he is a Mormon." None has moved to have a constitutional amendment forbidding the election of a Mormon to the Presidency. That obviously would constitute religious intolerance, and Romney would have every right to wax indignant about it. But he has absolutely no grounds for raising the cry of religious intolerance simply because some evangelicals don't want to see a Mormon as President and are unwilling to support him. I have no trouble myself tolerating Satan-worshippers in America, but I would not be inclined to vote for one as President: Does that make me bigot? The question of who we prefer to lead us has nothing to do with the question of who we are willing to tolerate, and it did Romney no credit to conflate these two quite distinct questions. There is nothing wrong with evangelicals wishing to see one of their own in the White House, or with atheists wishing to see one of theirs in the same position.
Romney's best approach might have been to say nothing at all. Certainly that would have been preferable to trying to turn his candidacy into an issue of religious tolerance. Better still, he might have said frankly: "My religion is different and, yes, even a trifle odd. But it has not kept Mormons from dying for their country, or paying their taxes, or educating their kids, or making decent communities in which to live."
Then has there been any of the later Living Prophets® who has gone on record and said what you've said: BY was WRONG in what he said?
If this is an accurate description of your belief, then WHY are you an LDS member?
“Why can’t Christ visit both places? Who are you to tell him what he can and cannot do?”
HuH?
I exclude them because the VAST MAJORITY of anti-Mormon bigots are found among the Evangelicals and Baptists. They seem utterly incapable of rational discourse and admitting they were lied to by propagandist anti-Mormon pastors and “experts.”
Lookit, I’m not new at anti-Mormonism - I’ve heard it all, repeatedly, ad nauseum, since my Baptist friends gave me Walter Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults soon after my baptism in the LDS Church in 1985.
I look with bemusement at the Evangelical conservatives in Iowa who would rather have Hilary as president by voting for Huckabee than getting past their bigotry against Mormons.
I’ve no doubt the majority of Americans will NEVER vote for a Southern Baptist PASTOR as president of the United States. Just how stupid are Evangelicals in Iowa anyways?
??? Then do it again and refuse the passages I just cited that EXPLICITLY say Jesus Christ is the Creator.
All I see is ad hominem attacks.
So, did I get from this reply that you think that baptizism is required to enter Heaven?
I never said I was...and I am not
Actually, that should trouble evangelicals more than it comforts them. It only comforts them because of his Mormon faith. His is essentially saying that whether a person of faith or not a person of faith, it shouldn't matter. That in it's self should trouble them, A person whose faith is no faith should also be not be disqualified by evangelicals?
1. Like I said, find out why Eloheim is PLURAL (i.e., “Gods” not “God”) and find out the role of the “bene ha eloheim” (”sons of God”) during the creation. Hint: this henotheistic cosmology is found in the EARLIEST portions of the Bible before the Captivity - it’ll be wise to actually study up first.
2. Furthermore, you shouldn’t confuse the creation of the universe 15 or so billion of years ago with the creation of the earth 5 or so billion of years ago. They are two separate creations.
3. Also, try to find out who has the right to say they are the creator of something, say, a building. Is the architect the creator? What about the project manager? Is the project manager still the creator if he has staff that he directs in the construction?
Boy, you really seem to have a very shallow and poorly thought out view of reality.
Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.
Is this some kind of TEST!!??
--MormonDude(Ask ME!! I know!)
“Why can’t Christ visit both places? Who are you to tell him what he can and cannot do?”
I don’t know, you are the Mormon scholar, I was hoping that you would tell me.
Edward Watson :
I’m tempted to just whack you but before I go through the trouble, why don’t you find out more about my competency concerning Mormon beliefs before attempting to enter into a debate with me? http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id20.htm
All of volume one is uploaded - just go to the TOC to see the relevant chapters (http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/bicycleroad/21/id24.htm ). Portions of volumes 2 and 3 are also available.
If, after examining these chapters, you still think I’m either lying or just ignorant about LDS doctrines, feel free to try me.
I guess that this writer has not been doing much lurking on Free Republic.
Dang!
I sure missed it!
Can you post a link??
This is why Mitt is hosed....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RVFFugaL7A
He’s slicker than dynamic duo from Arkansas..and unfortunately , while his appeal is more upscale than trailertrash...his facade has the same foundation.
[Sigh] Please don’t interject if you don’t understand the history and development of the Traditional Trinity. Your attempt to “read into” the Scriptures of the vastly foreign Platonic and Neo-Platonic concepts of deity that was started by the Apologists and completed by the Three Cappadocians, Tertullian, Athanasius, Augustine, and lastly Aquinas is pathetic. Your NERVE to proclaim those who refuse to accept this conflation are not “Christian” is utterly unbiblical - if so, no one before the fourth century is then a Christian.
|
The Articles of Faith
of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Joseph Smith |
Better to fight them OVER THERE than to have to fight them OVER HERE!
Ah Elsie, how nice to see you again. Still fighting against the True Church I see. Isn’t that special. Oh, and how nice to see you are STILL taking my words out of CONTEXT. Clever. Your mother must be so proud.
“Why not just stick to what the Bible says?”
Because then there would be no use for:
The Book of Mormon
The Pearl of Great Price
The Doctrines and Covenants
the pronouncements of the Living Prophet...
I would have to say your ideas of creation and reality are very unChristian. This was what we were talking about in the first place.
I seems, my dear Watson, that you have effectively proven MY point.....many gods, of Mormonism’s creation. Christ as only ONE of the creators.
Supreme effort on your part, my man, and all done just to prove my point. What a great intellect you are!
I can’t speak for Evangelicals in general. This was an opinion piece by a columnist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
